The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[apeiron]

Just take two pieces of rope and bend them around until the crossing you are looking at is reversed. One way is to turn the first strand around the (local) rotation axis provided by the second. Like real ropes or shoelaces.

Done that and it just introduces a twist further down the strand. The strand that was "behind" is still stuck behind. The crossing has just been moved sideways.

If the strands are two unanchored lengths, no problem of flopping them over. But if the four ends are anchored at infinity, I just don't get what you mean. No way to rotate them so one is moved from behind to in front.

 

[Max™]

That's why I decided I had to work up from intersection nodes, in part.

 

[physics8553]

Done that and it just introduces a twist further down the strand. The strand that was "behind" is still stuck behind. The crossing has just been moved sideways.

If the strands are two unanchored lengths, no problem of flopping them over. But if the four ends are anchored at infinity, I just don't get what you mean. No way to rotate them so one is moved from behind to in front.

All transformations that switch crossings are with ropes.

For example: take an axis vertical to the paper. Grab "one centimetre" of both strands and rotate these centimetres by 90 degrees around that axis. This changes a left crossing into a right crossing.

Another example: twist one rope around the other. This will indeed introduce additional crossings outside the field of view, but who cares? At the point in space we are interested
in, you have a crossing switch, and this is described by hbar. There will be other crossing switches elsewhere, which also produce hbars there.

So any motion of strands that at a particular point in space leads to the change from one crossing to another counts - as long as no rope passes through the other.

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

So any motion of strands that at a particular point in space leads to the change from one crossing to another counts - as long as no rope passes through the other.

This makes it much clearer. I think the paper should be improved on this point.

But the rest of it remains fascinating. I hope that others enjoy the Reidemeister explanation for the forces as much as I did.

 

[apeiron]

This will indeed introduce additional crossings outside the field of view, but who cares? At the point in space we are interested
in, you have a crossing switch, and this is described by hbar. There will be other crossing switches elsewhere, which also produce hbars there.

To me this is just moving a crossing with a twist, not actually switching a crossing.

And now you are introducing some kind of observer effect. There has to be a "me" for whom the crossing looks locally switched, and also a me that does not have the peripheral vision to see it has only been twisted.

This sounds crazy so I would be looking for more convincing explanations for why this would be a good model.

As I say, I like knot-style approaches generally. And spin networks. They model worlds in which global constraints breed local constructive freedoms, which then leads to self-organising or bootstrapping theories.

So constrain local action to strands, to 1D paths, and suddenly there are unavoidable local constructive freedoms. There are new local symmetries created and thus the chance for new local symmetry-breakings.

 

[physics8553]

To me this is just moving a crossing with a twist, not actually switching a crossing.

And now you are introducing some kind of observer effect. There has to be a "me" for whom the crossing looks locally switched, and also a me that does not have the peripheral vision to see it has only been twisted.

Yes, moving crossings with twists do produce a local crossing switch. The point of the model is that only such motions are allowed, and only crossing switches are observable, independently of how they appear.

With this definition one can deduce the Dirac equation and the three gauge groups.
Thus the definition seems to be very powerful.

I attached a file of two examples of how strand motions lead to crossing switches.


Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

With this definition one can deduce the Dirac equation and the three gauge groups.

Christoph, if i get it correctly, to deduce the Dirac equation you rely on the work of Battey and Racey. Then you say that the three Reidemeister moves define the three interactions.
For the photons, there are two polarization states and you map them to the two options of the Reidemeister I move. For the weak bosons, there are 3 massive particles and in total 9 polarization states. But there are only 6 Reidemeister moves and their opposites - how does this fit?

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, if i get it correctly, to deduce the Dirac equation you rely on the work of Battey and Racey. Then you say that the three Reidemeister moves define the three interactions.
For the photons, there are two polarization states and you map them to the two options of the Reidemeister I move. For the weak bosons, there are 3 massive particles and in total 9 polarization states. But there are only 6 Reidemeister moves and their opposites - how does this fit?

I guess you meant to say that there are only 6 Reidemeister II moves. Indeed, before symmetry breaking of the weak interaction, there are only 6 polarization states (as the particles are massless). The additional three states come from symmetry breaking. So it does fit :-)

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

Christoph, in your paper you explain the origin of electrodynamics, of the weak and of the strong force with strands. You explain the origin of the coupling constants and tell how to calculate them. In the previous papers you explained general relativity and quantum theory with strands. And you promise to explain the number of particles and their masses. If these arguments are correct, already now your theory has achieved more results than any other "theory of everything" before. Why are so few people interested?

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, in your paper you explain the origin of electrodynamics, of the weak and of the strong force with strands. You explain the origin of the coupling constants and tell how to calculate them. In the previous papers you explained general relativity and quantum theory with strands. And you promise to explain the number of particles and their masses. If these arguments are correct, already now your theory has achieved more results than any other "theory of everything" before. Why are so few people interested?

It is not correct that few people are interested!
I am getting a lot of constructive feedback, and
many parts of the manuscript have been checked
already. So far, there is no major issue, only several
aspects that need to be explained more clearly.

About your other comments: indeed, as far as I know,
there is no other explanation for the origin of the
interactions. The strand model seems both simpler
and further than the competitors on arxiv.
But we will see whether this advantage will remain
after in-depth scrutiny. I'll let you know when the
last manuscript is ready.

Christoph Schiller

 

[Max™]

Yeah, if it seems that there is little interest, it's just because it isn't a clear iteration of a mainstream topic.

lol

Perhaps you should slap a sexy String Theory buzzword in the title, that'll get some hits!

:D

 

[Fra]

About your other comments: indeed, as far as I know,
there is no other explanation for the origin of the
interactions. The strand model seems both simpler
and further than the competitors on arxiv.
But we will see whether this advantage will remain
after in-depth scrutiny. I'll let you know when the
last manuscript is ready.

I think your ambition to "explain origin of interactions" is definitely worth all attention.

To speak for myself, it's simple. I've got very little time even for my own thinking so I select strongly. I need to motivate myself in all time I invest in looking into something, wether it's more promising and might help my own thinking, or wether I should ignore it and keep thinking in the more promising direction.

Lets say that what you did is this; Assume X, and you show that X => interactions. I didn't find your premise X (which is based in knot theory) sufficiently plausible to make me want to invest more time at the moment at this "risk-level".

However since it's your theory and your job to work out all implications and convince everyone else, I am definitely interested to see the future of your ideas! Perhaps eventually it will be even more convinving. In business terms; you're trying to sell me a prototype, and some customer might want to wait for the finished, tested product before they buy :) That doesn't mean they wouldn't like it.

I honestly don't think anyone should be discouraged because there is low initial interest in a new idea. I think it's entirely normal and I guess it's up to the originator to be strong enough to keep working.

/Fredrik

 

[heinz]

Indeed, as far as I know,
there is no other explanation for the origin of the
interactions. The strand model seems both simpler
and further than the competitors on arxiv.
But we will see whether this advantage will remain
after in-depth scrutiny. I'll let you know when the
last manuscript is ready.

Christoph, all the best for your endeavour! I have a much fun playing with your ideas.

 

[heinz]

Christoph, maybe you will still read this. If the three Reidemeister moves correspond to the three gauge interactions, then there is a question. A move that is a Reidemeister I to one observer can be a Reidemeister II move to another (if he looks from a different direction). How is this taken into account in your proposal?

 

[physics8553]

If the three Reidemeister moves correspond to the three gauge interactions, then there is a question. A move that is a Reidemeister I to one observer can be a Reidemeister II move to another (if he looks from a different direction). How is this taken into account in your proposal?

At first sight, this mixes the interactions. One one hand, this is the argument for unification of the interactions. On the other hand, in a few words, statistics make the mix-up extremely unlikely.

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

I saw that Christoph Schiller has expanded his ideas: on his site he now has a model for leptons, quarks and even hadrons: he models vector bosons as knots made of one strand, quarks as knots made of two strands, and leptons as knots made of three strands. He claims that he can reproduce all quantum numbers. His model is getting interesting: not only does he claim that he can explain the three forces; he also claims that he can explain the three fermion generations. The bizarre side is that he claims that GUTs, supersymmetry etc. do not exist, that the Higgs does not exist, and that dark matter is conventional matter. He writes that all this follows from his model. He is thus much more ambitious than Bilson-Thompson and his ribbon model. Schiller claims to reproduce the standard model and general relativity, but he also predicts that no new particle will ever be discovered. Audacious or crazy? We will soon find out.

 

[tom.stoer]

I did not follow this discussion in detail: is there an arxiv reference or a website which provides the latest info? I know some rather old papers and I am not sure if a still have the overview on this subject.

How does the connection between these kind of models and LQG look like? Does LQG require a positive cosmological constant in order to get framed graphs? If yes, were does this constant coem frome if not from LQG itself?

 

[MTd2]

This is his website:

http://www.motionmountain.net

But I cannot find the information Heinz told us.

EDIT.:

Just found it!:

"No additional elementary particle will be discovered: the Higgs boson does not exist. The unitarity of scattering for longitudinal W and Z bosons is maintained at all energies. (New on website and 6th volume, August 2009.)"

http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html

 

[tom.stoer]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Deducing the three gauge interactions from featureless strands
(Christoph Schiller)
It is proposed to deduce the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions from Planck units through the behaviour of tangles of featureless strands.
In the strand model, particles are modeled as rotating tangles of unobservable strands. Only crossing changes are observable. Each crossing change has an associated action, time, length and entropy given by the corresponding Planck unit. Crossing changes are used to deduce all physical observables. Wave functions are temporal and spatial averages of strand densities leading to crossing changes. This connection is known to imply the Dirac equation.
Using this basis, gauge interactions are modeled as deformations of particle tangle cores. By applying the general approach of Berry, Wilczek, Zee and Shapere to such deformations, the three gauge interactions -- electromagnetic, weak and strong -- appear to follow from the three Reidemeister moves. In particular, U(1), SU(2), parity violation, SU(2) breaking, SU(3) and asymptotic freedom seem to follow naturally.
The model is consistent with all known data and makes several testable predictions, including the absence of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions. A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear naturally.

 

[heinz]

How does the connection between these kind of models and LQG look like? Does LQG require a positive cosmological constant in order to get framed graphs? If yes, were does this constant coem frome if not from LQG itself?

My impression is that there is little relation with LQG. More with the Bilson-Thompson stuff. The question seems to be: ribbons or strands? The two models have many similarities.

Maybe we can get Christoph to join this discussion again.

heinz

 

[heinz]

Christoph Schiller has updated his paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 . He changed the title and the abstract:

Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves.

We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three observed gauge groups. The argument is based on modelling nature at Planck scales as a collection of featureless strands that fluctuate in three dimensions. This approach models vacuum as untangled strands, particles as tangles of strands, and Planck units as crossing switches.
Modelling vacuum as untangled strands implies the field equations of general relativity, when applying an argument from 1995 to the thermodynamics of strands. Modelling fermions as tangles of two or more strands allows to define wave functions as time-averages of strand crossings; using an argument from 1980, this allows to deduce the Dirac equation.
When modelling fermions as tangled strands, gauge interactions appear naturally as deformation of tangle cores. The three possible types of observable core deformations are given by the three Reidemeister moves. They naturally lead to a U(1), a broken and parity-violating SU(2), and a SU(3) gauge group. The corresponding Lagrangians also appear naturally.
The model is unique, is unmodifiable, is consistent with all known data, and makes numerous testable predictions, including the absence of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions. A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear naturally.

------

This appears to be one of the few approaches around that predicts a lack of GUTs, of SUSY, of usual strings, of branes, and of loops. Christoph really does it in a way that goes against the ideas of almost everybody else :-) He appears to prefer Louis Kauffman's ideas.

He now cites David Deutsch and his talk on http://www.ted.com . Deutsch said in his last talk that truth is defined by "hard to vary" explanations. Christoph claims that his model has this property - that it is hard to vary - and thus that it could be true. Boy, if so, either this is totally wrong or it is totally true ...

 

[John86]

Sounds very interesting to me. Are there crossing points with Loops ?..
My gut feeling is that Schiller's strand model plank unit switch model is somehow a phase transitional phenomonan with respect to possibly what we call the Big bang

Can anybody gi some more insight !..

 

[Spinnor]

To quote Lubos Motl, who was discussing that surfer dude nonsense from last year, we have:



It is so sad that people buy into papers like this, if you are going to trade your life for a fantasy then why not play videogames, watch movies, or read literature?

I guess you were referring to the paper by Schiller,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 ?

Where is the fatal flaw, where is the fantasy? Schiller seems to explain a lot from a simple idea, from a quick read I'm not sure what is not explained. If not correct Schiller seems headed in the right direction.

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[MTd2]

The guy was banned. No use quoting him.

 

[Spinnor]

Can three theories be united; Loop, String, Strand?

Can Loop Quantum Gravity be united with String Theory be united with Strand Theory? Each has something nice.

Strand Theory, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[heinz]

I guess you were referring to the paper by Schiller,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 ?

Where is the fatal flaw, where is the fantasy? Schiller seems to explain a lot from a simple idea, from a quick read I'm not sure what is not explained. If not correct Schiller seems headed in the right direction.

Spinnor, a good friend once told me that in the past, people blinded by prejudice did not look into telescopes; nowadays they do not look at papers ... It is a waste of time to argue with such people.

I am most captivated by the definition of the wave function as a time average of strand crossings. This definition is so simple! I just read the longer explanation of wave functions in chapter 9 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html and found no errors: the full Hilbert structure is reproduced. This alone is stuff to think about for a while.

 

[heinz]

Can Loop Quantum Gravity be united with String Theory be united with Strand Theory? Each has something nice.

Schiller wrote me that strings live in 10 to 26 dimensions, have tension and have supersymmetry, whereas strands live in 3 dimensions and have no tension and no supersymmetry. So there is a contradiction. LQG lives in 3 dimensions, so maybe there are connections to strands.

 

[marcus]

In my not-at-all-original opinion, Christoph deserves a break and should be given some kind of entrée somewhere. He is an intelligent general thinker, and he is in a certain sense "scholarly".
He is gentlemanly, responsible, and sane. And moreover his ideas are quite interesting!*

"Uniting" other theories with string is not very interesting to discuss. String has become a boring Baroque mess. Parts of the mathematics can be salvaged and put to other uses, but as all-embracing fundamental theory it is no longer much of a bid.

In the paper you linked, Christoph makes the very significant point that a unified theory should be impossible to modify.
His theory might be wrong, but it is impossible to modify.
Heinz pointed this out.
Christoph cannot allow extra dimensions, or more than three generations. His theory will not work if any part is changed, say in order to try to "unite" it with some ill-defined alternative.

In a way the guy is a Romantic. He has gambled all on one throw. Hier steh' ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Heh heh. Beautiful. Very North European in style. Tough act.

I want to quote this bit, right at the end:

Any unified description of nature must first of all provide a precise description of observations. This can only be tested by experiment. But a unified description must also have an additional property: it must be unmodifiable. A unified description must leave no alternative.

If a unified description can be modified, it loses its explanatory power. (David Deutsch says that any good explanation must be ‘hard to vary’ [Deutsch 2009].) In particular, the requirement means that a unified description must be impossible to generalize, and that it must be impossible to reduce the unified description to special cases. Exploring the strand model [Schiller 2009] shows that it fulfils these conditions. In particular, the strand model does not work for other spatial dimensions, for other types of fundamental entities, or for other definitions of the Planck units.

Therefore, the strand model is a candidate for a unified description – but only in the case that its predictions are confirmed.​

*I see from glancing at that other "crazy enough" thread that Christoph says he is getting a lot of good feedback now. Maybe the establishment is going to open up somewhere and absorb the "strands" idea. I have no way of guessing about this.

 

[jal]

@ Spinnor
Thanks for bring this info to my/our attention.

I find that Christoph Schiller has an overlooked and a new way of explaining things.

I did not find it a waste of time to look at what he has to say.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/12/guestpost-christoph-schiller-about.html
BY BEE ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008
Guestpost: Christoph Schiller about Motion Mountain
"Please present the free Motion Mountain Physics Text and yourself!" Sabine wrote me some time ago. I answered that I first wanted to put the new version online. That is now done; it can be downloaded at www.motionmountain.net.
----
He has three papers at arxiv.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 24 May 2009 (v1), last revised 14 Nov 2009 (this version, v2))

----
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607090
General relativity and cosmology derived from principle of maximum power or force
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 11 Jul 2006)

----
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118
Maximum force and minimum distance: physics in limit statements
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 29 Sep 2003 (v1), last revised 14 Apr 2004 (this version, v5))
-----
jal

 

[SimonA]

Since strands allow to deduce the Dirac equation, the field equations of general relativity, and since strands fulfil the known requirements for a unified theory
Christoph Schiller

There are some interesting ideas here for sure. But what are these "strands" ? You say they are "invisible" - by which I assume you mean they are undetectable to macro instruments composed of physical matter ?

How about we play with this a bit ? These strands are seen as determining both the vacuum and particles, lacing 3d space almost as the canvas is to a painting. But what if we say that space is a strand, time is a strand, and there are other strands interwoven to form a connected picture? And each strand interacts with each other in very particular but different ways.

I suspect that when we stand back and take our eyes away from the microscope studying the canvas in such detail, we will see that there is paint on the surface and a canvass behind it. We may even see the paintbrush that drives the wave to become a point, and possibly the force that drives the brush that started the painting. The question I have, is will we see the subject of the painting as it is, rather than as it's shown? I suspect reason alone can't make that leap, no matter what the technalogical understanding of the age the researcher sits in.

 

[heinz]

I just saw that wikipedia says in the article on loop quantum gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity : "there is no experimental observation for which loop quantum gravity makes a prediction not made by the Standard Model or general relativity"

Is this really true? If yes, then loop quantum gravity is as dead as string theory. Quite different from the strand model. These are the experimental predictions I found on the strand model site at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred :

-------------

Some predictions of the model (with their timing), made before conclusive experiments (at the LHC, on neutrinos, on electric dipole moments, about QCD, and in astrophysics):

* No additional elementary particle will be discovered: the Higgs boson does not exist. The unitarity of scattering for longitudinal W and Z bosons is maintained at all energies. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.)
* Non-local and non-perturbative effects in longitudinal W and Z boson scattering will be observed. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.)
* Gauge couplings, particle masses, mixing angles and their running can be calculated with help of knot, polymer or cosmic string simulation programs. (Website, March 2009, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* All neutrinos have mass and differ from their antiparticles. Neutrinoless double-beta decay will not be observed. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.)
* Hadron form factors can be calculated ab initio. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.)
* The light scalar mesons are mostly tetraquarks; knotted two-quark states and knotted glueballs are ruled out. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The probable non-existence of glueballs needs a better argument. (Website, October 2008, changed to opposite in April 2009; see manuscript 4 and the 6th volume.)
* Dark matter is compatible with the standard model. Dark matter detectors will not detect anything new. (Website, September 2008, and the 6th volume.)
* The electric dipole moment of elementary fermions is of the order of the Planck length times the elementary charge. (Website, November 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* The quark mixing and the neutrino mixing matrices are unitary. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The coupling constants, particle masses and mixing angles are constant in time. (Website, November 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* There are only three fermion generations. The proton and the positron charge are equal. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The highest chromoelectric (and chromomagnetic) field in nature is given by the highest force divided by the colour charge; similar limits exist for the weak interaction. The limits can be checked in neutron/quark stars or other astrophysical objects. (Website, September 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No gauge groups other than those of the standard model exist in particle physics. No form of GUT, technicolour or supersymmetry is valid. No other interaction exists. Protons do not decay. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* No additional elementary gauge bosons, preons, superpartners, magnetic monopoles, axions, sterile neutrinos, additional fermion families or leptoquarks exist. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* No additional spatial dimensions, fermionic coordinates, non-commutative spacetime or different vacua exist in nature. No dilaton exists. (Website, August 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No quantum gravity effect will ever be observed - not counting the cosmological constant and the masses of the elementary particles. (Website, September 2009, and volume VI.)
* No deviations from QCD and almost none from the standard model appear for any measurable energy scale. In particular, the strand model implies that SU(2) is broken and P, C and CP are violated in the weak interaction, and that SU(3), confinement and asymptotic freedom are properties of the strong interaction. Longitudinal W and Z scattering is slightly changed at LHC energies. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)

* No deviations from quantum theory or quantum electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. The QED energy dependence of the fine structure constant is reproduced. (Manuscript 3, April 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No deviations from thermodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscripts 2 and 3, April 2008.)

* The universe's integrated luminosity is c^5/4G. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, it decreases with time. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, minimal electric and magnetic fields, a minimum force and a minimum acceleration exist. (Manuscript 2, March 2008.)
* The universe has trivial topology at all measurable energies. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* No singularities, wormholes, time-like loops, negative energy regions, cosmic strings, cosmic domain walls, information loss, torsion or MOND exist; inflation did not occur. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* No deviations from special or general relativity appear for any measurable energy scale. No doubly or deformed special relativity arises in nature. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)

* There are maximal electric and magnetic fields in nature. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.)
* No deviations from electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.)

* The Planck values are the smallest measurable length and time intervals, the Planck momentum and energy are the highest measurable values for elementary particles. A maximum curvature exists and the generalized indeterminacy principle holds. (As predicted by many.)
* The highest force and power values measurable locally in nature are c^4/4G and c^5/4G. (Proved independently by Gary Gibbons, and suggested by several others.)
* The smallest entropy in nature is given by k ln 2. (As stated by many.)
* The quantum of action, hbar, is the smallest action value measurable in nature. (As stated by Niels Bohr.)
* The speed of light, c, is the highest energy speed measurable locally in nature. (As stated by Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others.)

-------------

This list looks pretty testable to me!

 

[tom.stoer]

I don't think that "unite the three theories ..." is the right wording. You cannot put three theories together and let a forth simply emerge from it. But the three "theories" you are mentioning are not theories like GR, QM, QFT ..., they are research programs! All of them miss experimental support. Even for QM / QFT and GR "putting them together" was not successful so far. The big difference is that for QM and GR you have a (physically) correct starting point, which is missing for the three approaches you are mentioning.

So these programs can learn from each other; they can try to incorporate certain aspects, they can borrow mathematical methods. But I would not call this a unification.

 

[jal]

Any approach that tries to explain that which we still do not know and can capture the interest and imagination of an inquisitive mind to study how the universe could be made is worthwhile.

To preview the book without downloading it, click on Motion Mountain on scribd.com.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11652414/Motion-Mountain-NEW-vol-1-The-Adventure-of-Physics-edition-235

jal

 

[physics8553]

In loop quantum gravity, there seems no established way to explain gauge interactions. The main point of the manuscript is to present such a way, a way that uses only three spatial dimensions. On the other hand, the strand model seems so tied up with the definition of wave function and of space-time, and so hard to modify, that its concepts are quite distant from those of the various flavours of loop quantum gravity and of the various formulations of string theory.

The modelling of wave functions with the help of strands is only summarized in the manuscript. It is explained in more detail in the pdf found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research , in chapter 9 "Quantum theory of matter deduced from strands" which starts at page 157. The explanation shows that the definition of the wavefunction for fermions using strands depends on three spatial dimensions. It does not work in other numbers of dimensions.

Christoph

 

[physics8553]

(1)... But what are these "strands" ? You say they are "invisible" - by which I assume you mean they are undetectable to macro instruments composed of physical matter ?

(2) ... But what if we say that space is a strand, time is a strand, and there are other strands interwoven to form a connected picture? And each strand interacts with each other in very particular but different ways.

(3) I suspect that when we stand back and take our eyes away from the microscope studying the canvas in such detail, we will see that there is paint on the surface and a canvass behind it. We may even see the paintbrush that drives the wave to become a point, and possibly the force that drives the brush that started the painting. The question I have, is will we see the subject of the painting as it is, rather than as it's shown? I suspect reason alone can't make that leap, no matter what the technalogical understanding of the age the researcher sits in.

These are three points:

(1) Strands are unobservable by themselves, they all reach the "border of space" and they all seem to one single strand, as proposed in the chapter on cosmology. So the answer is: there is only one strand, and that strand is the universe. What we can observe are crossing switches.This is related to the fact that all observations use the electromagnetic interaction, and this interaction is described by the first Reidemeister move, which is related to crossing switches in the simplest way.

(2) In the present formulation, only particles and space are strands, time is not.

(3) Yes, that is a good explanation of the fascination of the strand model.

Generally speaking, the strand model is a proposal for discussion, and everybody can check whether it fits observations.In the manuscript http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 the strand model is only used to derive the three gauge interactions. The rest of the strand model - explaining why the Lagrangian of the standard model of particle physics appears, why three generations of particles appear, and which experimenal predictions follow - for the moment is only found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred

At this point it seems that all the experimentally veryfied Lagrangian terms of the standard model of particle physics are reproduced. That makes the strand model interesting - so that now the detailed checking can - and must - start.

Christoph